sachdevap

And if those secrets are all there are, what good is a democracy. A democracy can't function in the darkness. What restraint would you advocate in not leaking all secrets? Where would you draw the line? Who should be vetting these papers under such strictly pressured timelines?

On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?

The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".

Your world view is terribly idealistic from a govt perspective. We are in the midst of a whistle-blower leak right now where an army colonel no less is being threatened to the extent that the US military is looking to take that person to a secure location. This after having the US congress AND the army on his side.

Imagine being a contractor and having no established procedures to go to, and when you blow the whistle, they just bring the hammer on you. Have you read about what Katherine Gun went through for blowing the whistle on a completely illegitimate war where an ally - the US (not her own country) - was pressuring countries in the UN to join the war?

You speak in black and white for Snowden and Manning's morality, but refuse to acknowledge the downright terrible greys of the govts involved.

> Eating bone marrow played a key role

This conclusion is a big leap, even as per the article you shared. "The strength required to access the high calorie content of bone marrow may have played a key role in the evolution of the human hand and explain why primates hands are not like ours, research has found."

It's just a possibility. They can't even make a strong claim about it.

I understand the title used on HN tries to follow what the article title is, but it is thoroughly useless in giving me any information on the link. Why should I even open this link?

Actually my reading says that the context there is stating the assumptions on the basis of which the rest of the document is based.

And I don't think "accelerating inequality we’re witnessing is not the natural inequality of competition and the power law, easily explained by simple arithmetic" as an axiom compares to "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

As an aside, I believe the founders of the US did some great work, but let's not put their use of certain phrases on a pedestal. For example, I for one do not believe in a creator at all.

> "self-evident" is inappropriate because it presumes perspective of the reader

I don't think that is the reason for it being inappropriate. In my opinion, such phrases are a result intellectual laziness, of which I am also guilty at times.

I would suggest that your perception of his use of the phrase is just your perception. I have listened to him often, and never found him to be arrogant. He is not passively asserting that the listener is uninformed. He is just saying that the sources are abundant and easily available. Not to mention, he often cites people whose work he is referring to. If you are familiar with the work he is referring to, he is clearly not assigning homework to you. If you are not familiar, I don't see how it is arrogant to ask someone to familiarize themselves with a given perspective on the subject matter where sources are easily available.

And to assume that he does not have authority as an expert in a myriad of topics seems to be giving him little credit.

It is actually quite nearby on astronomical scales. For reference, the milky way is 105,700 light years in diameter.

Is it really? 99.9% of the people who read the news do nothing to use that in any way to fight for the weakest in our society. For most, news is nothing but a list of topics for small talk. A few work towards using it to understand topics and make informed decisions. Even fewer actually act on anything they hear in the news directly.

While this is a possibility, North Korea does have motive in looking to gather nuclear program info via hacking.

The study talks of rate of subsequent cognitive decline post retirement. There's no fixed state, which once reached, people start retiring. I think the study does control for reverse causality. It is not a correlational study.

Is there a reason you believe that the causality should be reversed? The article suggests they did tests post retirement and observed the rate of decline.

The Indian nuclear program has a long history of being thwarted by intelligence agencies. Not unexpected, considering the ramifications of nuclear military power.

In the past, it was the scientists of the program who were targeted, and were killed mysteriously. [0]

[0] https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbepmd/why-are-indian-aut...

Good faith implies intent of the entity is measured, not necessarily of the way the law is written. Textualists like Gorsuch would actually not read into the intent of the law writers and interpret "good faith" how he pleases cause that's as specific as the written law is. Don't you agree?

Hah. I'm flattered, but I have never been remotely associated with law either through education or through work. :)

Actually, law does not always use intent. Intent is the primary basis for one of the philosophies of jurisprudence, not every judicial body/judge follows that. See textualism for an example where intent is irrelevant.

Retreating in bits and pieces is a choice made by Facebook. No one forced them to do this. It's their choice as a company trying maximize their visibility/profits. I don't think people would have left FB if FB just decided to not moderate political content at all. Just like right now, there is no exodus of people from FB in spite of the outrage.

You are attributing very little agency to a company that makes its decisions unilaterally (sometimes even ignoring laws). This is a gross misrepresentation of FB's position. FB is not a victim here.

This is yet another example of you just dodging the problem. FB is arbitrarily demarcating a line of their choosing with no consistency. Politicians are no different from people, and should not be treated to a special "free speech pass" on FB. Free speech for all, or free speech for none. There's no decent reasoning behind this midway solution. The true reason for this is that the politicians have regulatory leverage over FB.

Facebook is already doing moderation of political content posted by non-politicians. See the latest news about content removed about Lindsey Graham. Facebook is choosing not to stay on the sidelines themselves already. They are just doing so for politicians.

The status quo of Facebook is worse than them not touching any of the political content on their site.

I've seen you repeat these arguments over and over in this thread, without suggesting any solution. I am guessing you are content with the status quo of Facebook.

It would not make the GOP politicians happy who wield their administrative power over FB, and have a lot of political capital invested in blatantly lying to the public.

Very much this. The top comment on the thread is just ignorant of the situation.

Dark skies require a pretty high radius of dark landmass. For an estimate of the extent of this, try seeing the areas around major cities here: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/

A UI is more work, and a CLI can be piped into all sorts of personal projects/workflows. I sure would like this.

I'd like to see this guide too, please.

Not necessarily. You could mix it in processed sewage. Assuming processed sewage is appropriately disposed off in the sea at limited locations with precautions, this should work. One concern may be the sheer volume from desalination might overburden the sewage disposal.

Ah, I see. That makes it so much better. I am glad he'll only destroy them without crushing their bones.

Does knuckle cracking have anything to do with cartilage? I suspect it is not a related process.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259603.php

The "One-China" policy is way beyond just geographical. It has very strong cultural ambitions too. You cannot talk of the geographical policies in isolation.

Thank you for the advice!